₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
You are very much on point good sir. Its amazing to listen to an evolutionary biologist such as Richard Dawkins on this subject sometimes - amazingly absurd. Mind you, he is a man I have strangely come to admire over the years, after an initial strong dislike, but when you hear him talk on this subject, he virtually attributes personality and intentionality to chemicals. The chemicals, of their own volition, in his view react to even situations that evidently require a purposeful mind to react to. And this again harks back to a question I asked early on - a chicken and egg question: which comes first - is it the mind directing the chemicals to act or the chemicals making the mind act. Or in fact, the chemicals making the mind direct the chemicals to act on the mind, to direct the chemicals (and this becomes and infinite loop, a never ending cycle, in fact, an infinite regress, to show you the absurdity.

A clear and lucid view of things should render it obvious that mere dead matter (or any combinations of mere dead matter) cannot account for the minds that we have, or for the beings that we are.

It is unfortunate that the scientific community is sometimes like a CULT. Some aspect of objective reasonings are deliberately shut out in favour of another theory of favour.

For instance even though a transgender and same-sex attraction is an aberration in nature, the scientific community against all common sense refuse to see it like a mental disorder!

With respect to which came first between the mind and chemicals: the question to ask is why our WILL can override our Feelings and Emotions?

DeepSight:
I need to isolate this excellent point: for the way scientists describe it, one would think that the genes have a mental purpose of their own which they execute with the creature as a mere tool or vessel for the independent agenda of the genes.

Meaning that the purpose of the genes were determined externally by the Creator. Of course Atheists and many biologists will disagree vehemently against such idea.

I sometimes wonder how dogs seem to know how to mate even without ever seeing copulation by older dogs.

TenQ:
The baby seem to know that the solution to hunger is to drink milk. Baby chicks don't have to be taught to walk or peck at for food.

See what I said here -

DeepSight:
You see, "that fucking milk" could be the basis for asking you to think a little. Because new born pups for example, will immediately begin to struggle for their mother's mammary glands. Because they are so pre-programmed. You may try to wave this away as simple instinct, actuated by senses such as thirst, hunger and smell, but you see, I said this could be a basis for asking you to think - because there are too many startling examples in the natural world which go further to underscore the point: newly hatched turtles will instantly head to the sea - every single one of them with all the strength they can muster - and this, without the presence or guidance of their parents. You are free to point out how these are scientifically explained but you will be missing the point because I dont doubt that they are. The point is simply that there exist definite codes imprinted even on the newest of new born babies. certainly not "a blank slate."[/i]

It has been as if I am a lunatic for saying these simple things.

TenQ:
It is unfortunate that the scientific community is sometimes like a CULT.

Now I am forced to steal the words of the greatest Nairalander of all time, Sir 'Kumo of That (also known therefore as Sadat, or simply as Jakumo) and say that you sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Because two years ago I wrote an article titled "The Resurrection of Heresy" in which I pointed out just how the scientific academia now punishes what it deems heresy in a frighteningly similar way to the Roman Church of old.

I will post that thread somewhere.

TenQ:
To distinguish between whether a vehicle is autonomous or not takes being outside the internal space of the vehicle.

Can the vehicle itself know the difference between when it is software driven or driven by a person?

Don't forget that an autonomous vehicle is designed to imitate as close as possible human response to the environment.


Too easy!
Logically look at the unknown from the point of view of the known.

Is it possible to have a complex AI humanoid robot that is not software driven?

If let's say it is possible, how is the basic rules of interaction with the environment set? A baby as soon as it is born instinctively know that he should breath in air and exhale out wastes. The baby seem to know that the solution to hunger is to drink milk. Baby chicks don't have to be taught to walk or peck at food.

If chemicals rule us, why is it that manytimes, we through our will override our FEAR?. If chemicals rule us, why is it that manytimes, we through our will override our PAIN?

Too easy yet you mere disparage the idea that chemicals rule us (which BTW is NOT my position) without actually laying out the process by which we may distinguish an autonomous unit from a driven one.

TenQ:
For instance even though a transgender and same-sex attraction is an aberration in nature, the scientific community against all common sense refuse to see it like a mental disorder!

Same sex attraction is aberration in nature? Really? So all the animals that display same sex attraction are what exactly?

LordReed2nd:
Same sex attraction is aberration in nature? Really? So all the animals that display same sex attraction are what exactly?

Don't twist my words. I haven't said these don't occur in nature I said it is an aberration (it's not normal)

Isnt cannibalism also an aberration in animals?
Should humans also practice cannibalism because it occurs in nature?

TenQ:
What truely controls an artificial intelligence robot?
Is it the electrons that flow in its central processing unit OR the software that controls how the electrons flow?

Drugs/Chemicals can induce certain perceptions and reactions to the environment BUT is that the end or the vehicle of control?

It is well known that electrical impulses control muscle movement. Can the same argument of the chemicals in the brain not also be used for electric impulses?

A software doesn't work in isolation of the hardware: the mind is the software that work on the body. The chemicals, elections, etc are just vehicles of control.

you contradict your self. You say what controls an artificial intelligence. Then you talk about flow of electron and software conveniently forgetting that softwares are basically at the machine language level just 0s and 1s Open and close gates. Which simply means control of flow of electrons in the processor(transistor). So your point is pointless except for people who dont know how machines work

LordReed2nd:
Too easy yet you mere disparage the idea that chemicals rule us (which BTW is NOT my position) without actually laying out the process by which we may distinguish an autonomous unit from a driven one.

I think I answered you: I said
Too easy!

Logically look at the unknown from the point of view of the known.

Is it possible to have a complex AI humanoid robot that is not software driven?

What can be faulted here?

DeepSight:
Now I am forced to steal the words of the greatest Nairalander of all time, Sir 'Kumo of That (also known therefore as Sadat, or simply as Jakumo) and say that you sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

Because two years ago I wrote an article titled "The Resurrection of Heresy" in which I pointed out just how the scientific academia now punishes what it deems heresy in a frighteningly similar way to the Roman Church of old.

I will post that thread somewhere.

Of course!
My first eye opener was the Y2K supposed epidemic where computers will crash, planes will fall, banks will loose trillions of dollars etc. We now know that it was a hoax.

Look at the COVID-19 and their vaccination solution. Data is now showing them wrong even though they boxed the whole world to think along their line of thinking.

TenQ:
Don't twist my words. I haven't said these don't occur in nature I said it is an aberration (it's not normal)

Even at that, to be sincere animals are not homosexxual in the way that humans understand homosexxuality. You scarcely find animals who have a limited and strict desire for others of the same sex specifically: more often than not because of the way animal sexuality works with periods of heat, you will find that many animals will hump anything humpable around them during such heat. My dogs would hump my leg when desperate, they would also hump tables and chairs. However this has been seized upon by many people to erroneously or disingenuously characterize such as evidence of animal homosexuality when they hump another of the same sex in like manner.

DeepSight:
See what I said here -



It has been as if I am a lunatic for saying these simple things.

And you are perfectly correct.

Unfortunately, the truth points them to a direction they would rather find an alternative. The narration of God preprogramming existence is something they don't want to consider at all.

Can a program write itself from sets of alphanumeric characters (given enough time and permutations of combinations)?
I still wonder how they feel that somehow the answer can be a YES!

TenQ:
Of course!
My first eye opener was the Y2K supposed epidemic where computers will crash, planes will fall, banks will loose trillions of dollars etc. We now know that it was a hoax.

Look at the COVID-19 and their vaccination solution. Data is now showing them wrong even though they boxed the whole world to think along their line of thinking.

Let me drop a small extract from the tail-end of "The Resurrection of Heresy" my article, which I mentioned.

In an atmosphere where the expression of open and even contrary opinion on social or other matters of concern becomes taboo, there rests a grave danger to the global society as a whole. Primarily that danger involves the reality that certain ethos may be foisted on nations a sizable population of which find disagreement with such, but daren’t speak up.

This phenomenon replicates itself in many respects and the scientific community is not immune to its effects. I will briefly cite two examples: the Theory of Evolution, and Covid-19.

The Theory of Evolution is not something that I dismiss at a personal level, nevertheless, within the scientific academic community, I cannot help seeing the same phenomenon play itself out: Evolution is scientific orthodoxy in today’s world and any scientist who conducts any research, writes any paper or expresses any opinion contrary to the Theory of Evolution will quickly find himself or herself in a most perilous position with respect to his or her career. There have been professors who have seen their careers come to a crashing halt for this. This is very sad – especially because science, of all endeavors, ought to be the in the vanguard of truly free and open inquiry in all directions. However today, there is hardly any difference between the scientific community’s approach to divergent views on Evolution and the attitude of the Roman Inquisition to heresy.

With the coronavirus pandemic which brought a screeching halt to most of the global economy this year, I observed something very similar. Even in the absence of a known cure such orthodoxy very quickly built up around it which did not permit of the expression of divergent views. Having listened to many professionals on the subject, I am aware that there are several views in existence, but it has become virtual taboo for any views other than those which are mainstream to be expressed. In this regard, social media platforms such as Google, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter and others, quickly shut down, block and ban contrary views and those who express them. Whilst I understand the importance of ensuring that people are not misinformed on health matters, I have seen many perfectly harmless contributions deleted, banned or blocked in this regard. In one instance, a person who wrote a post saying that he thought people should live a healthy lifestyle with an emphasis on keeping up strong immune systems was blocked on a particular social media platform for saying just that in response to the pandemic. For the life of me, I cannot understand what may be dangerous about that statement. But this just emphasizes the point about how freedom of thought and speech can very quickly be clamped down upon, in the face of any emergent orthodoxy.

Orthodoxies often spring up around events or subjects which involve a matter as critical as life and death. Hence their power. With religious orthodoxy it is a question of eternal life and death, with scientific orthodoxy, it is often a question of life and death in medical terms, such as with Covid-19 - but sometimes also in terms of the great questions of life – such as with the Theory of Evolution. With the emergent orthodoxy on LGBT rights, the very lives of involved minority groups are at stake, and with movements such as Black Lives Matter, again, lives are at stake. This is the reason it is so easy and often so tempting to, with the crowd, shut down, clampdown on, or seek to “cancel” people whose views differ from these orthodoxies – as Cancel Culture will have it. But then again, with a little reflection, we all should also see the many dangers in such absolutist stances.

In the immortal words of George Orwell: - “Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”

Let us choose consciousness.

DeepSight:
Even at that, to be sincere animals are not homosexxual in the way that humans understand homosexxuality. You scarcely find animals who have a limited and strict desire for others of the same sex speficically: more often than not because of the way animal sexuality works with periods of heat, you will find that many animals will hump anything humpable around them during such heat. My dogs would hump my leg when desperate, they would also hump tables and chairs. However this has been seized upon by many people to erroneously or disingenuously characterize such as evidence of animal homosexuality when they hump another of the same sex in like manner.

Just like cannibalism, whenever (even if it can be proved that it occurs) it is found in nature, it must be an aberration else life would have been extinct!

HardMirror:
you contradict your self. You say what controls an artificial intelligence. Then you talk about flow of electron and software conveniently forgetting that softwares are basically at the machine language level just 0s and 1s Open and close gates. Which simply means control of flow of electrons in the processor(transistor). So your point is pointless except for people who dont know how machines work

Sorry bro!
It seems it is you who don't know that the software is the INFORMATION and INSTRUCTIONS that tell the electrons how to move and control other devices in a computer. Without the INFORMATION/INSTRUCTIONS, nothing happens in a computer!

TenQ:
Can a program write itself from sets of alphanumeric characters (given enough time and permutations of combinations)?
I still wonder how they feel that somehow the answer can be a YES!

Especially the program for something like the human brain. To suggest so has been likened to thinking that an orangutan playing with a laptop could produce the complete works of Shakespeare, once given sufficient time!

TenQ:
Sorry bro!
It seems it is you who don't know that the software is the INFORMATION and INSTRUCTIONS that tell the electrons how to move and control other devices in a computer. Without the INFORMATION/INSTRUCTIONS, nothing happens in a computer!

na you sabi. To continue arguing with you is futile. Please yourself.

TenQ:
Don't twist my words. I haven't said these don't occur in nature I said it is an aberration (it's not normal)

Isnt cannibalism also an aberration in animals?
Should humans also practice cannibalism because it occurs in nature?

So you are saying same sex attraction is natural but an aberration?

Nobody said we should do things because animals do it so I dunno why you are asking me that question.

TenQ:
I think I answered you: I said
Too easy!

Logically look at the unknown from the point of view of the known.

Is it possible to have a complex AI humanoid robot that is not software driven?

What can be faulted here?

Because your response is not an answer to the question posed. I ask you for a clear way to distinguish between 2 different things and you respond with a rhetorical question whose answer provides nothing in a way of an answer.

DeepSight:
I therefore say that there is as yet no proof that life, with its unique properties (especially the property of reproduction / self replication) could have arisen spontaneously - virtually magically - from otherwise dead matter - not to speak of then evolving into minds.

I'm going to deal only with the above.

Evolutionists make no claim that life rose spontaneously. They'll tell you life evolved over a very long period of time, but that aside.

I guess from the above, no God could possibly have created humans neither, since the process of creations we read describes a "spontaneously - virtually magically" creation, and out of nothing, of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

budaatum:
I'm going to deal only with the above.

Evolutionists make no claim that life rose spontaneously. They'll tell you life evolved over a very long period of time, but that aside.

The Theory of Evolution does not address itself to the origin of life at all.

I guess from the above, no God could possibly have created humans neither, since the process of creations we read describes a "spontaneously - virtually magically" creation, and out of nothing, of which there is no evidence whatsoever.

Well that is the cup of tea of anyone who believes in a God who created this world. I dont believe in any such thing.

DeepSight:
Well that is the cup of tea of anyone who believes in a God who created this world. I dont believe in any such thing.

Good. Glad I did not say you did.

Deepsight, how did life come about?

budaatum:
Good. Glad I did not say you did.

Deepsight, how did life come about?

I dont know.

DeepSight:
I dont know.

That's precisely what Evolutionists would say too, yet you strawman them as materialists and then commence arguing against straw.

If you were honest, you'd have said you don't really know much of what you wrote about in that post as if it were fact, and were merely speculating, and I would have loved you for pushing thought forward a bit, but you've unfortunately presented it as fact, which it isn't.

budaatum:
That's precisely what Evolutionists would say too, yet you strawman them as materialists and then commence arguing against straw.

I must honestly tell you that I generally have a hard time understanding you: in this instance let us be clear - there are evolutionists who are materialists and there are evolutionists who are not (in fact the Catholic Church endorses belief in evolution). So I dont understand how I have strawmanned all evolutionists: I have merely spoken about the strict materialists who evidently have no recourse to anything beyond matter in arriving at the explanation for life and consciousness/ mind.

If you were honest, you'd have said you don't really know much of what you wrote about in that post as if it were fact, and were merely speculating, and I would have loved you for pushing thought forward a bit, but you've unfortunately presented it as fact, which it isn't.

I just dont understand you. I haven't offered any "theory of everything." What I have done is simply question the consistency of the materialist worldview.

DeepSight:
I must honestly tell you that I generally have a hard time understanding you: in this instance let us be clear - there are evolutionists who are materialists and there are evolutionists who are not (in fact the Catholic Church endorses belief in evolution). So I dont understand how I have strawmanned all evolutionists: I have merely spoken about the strict materialists who evidently have no recourse to anything beyond matter in arriving at the explanation for life and consciousness/ mind.

I just dont understand you. I haven't offered any "theory of everything." What I have done is simply question the consistency of the materialist worldview.

"Strict materialist"? Try "strict Christian", or "strict Muslim". Tell me if that does not sound absurd to you unless you consider a religious terrorist.

Does the "strict materialist" also learn doctrines they must all believe without questioning?

I know you have a hard time understanding me. Have you noticed you've not even tried by asking a single question about what you've read me write but do not understand?

DeepSight:
What I have done is simply question the consistency of the materialist worldview.

Straw, DeepSight!

There is no "consistency of the materialist worldview"!

LordReed:
Because your response is not an answer to the question posed. I ask you for a clear way to distinguish between 2 different things and you respond with a rhetorical question whose answer provides nothing in a way of an answer.

To answer any question of a complex nature, you move from known to unknown.

The question was knowing which position is correct from
1. The intangible Soul/Mind/Spirit as the fundamental source of living activities
OR
2. That the tangible organs/genes/brain/chemistry as the fundamental source of living activities

What are the knowns that can be used to comprehend or explain what our observations?

A good example of the known is a Computer/AI humanoid robot. It is entirely built up of physical tangible matter BUT is controlled by an intangible SOFTWARE!

A logical question to test the above hypothesis of similarity is to ask the question:
Is it possible to have a computer/AI humanoid robot that is devoid of a software?

The answer for now is NO!

Meaning that the hypothesis makes sense UNTIL a better one is put forward.

Do you have a better/contrary hypothesis?

LordReed:
So you are saying same sex attraction is natural but an aberration?

Nobody said we should do things because animals do it so I dunno why you are asking me that question.

I didn't say that same sex attractions natural: I said even though they exist in nature they are an aberration.

Similarly, cannibalism exist in nature BUT it is an aberration. And humans don't have to be cannibalistic simply because it exist in nature!

HardMirror:
na you sabi. To continue arguing with you is futile. Please yourself.

Don't shut down: THINK!

budaatum:
Straw, DeepSight!

There is no "consistency of the materialist worldview"!

Honestly you deeply befuddle me. I don't know what you mean here. For what it's worth, what I mean by "consistency" there is simpy cogency against known factors and our collective as well as subjective experiences of the nature of our lives and being.

Perhaps you need to find a simpler way of communicating your thoughts to me because I mean it when I say I am mostly at a complete loss as to the things you say.

TenQ:
I didn't say that same sex attractions natural: I said even though they exist in nature they are an aberration.

Similarly, cannibalism exist in nature BUT it is an aberration. And humans don't have to be cannibalistic simply because it exist in nature!

Nobody is making the argument that because it exists in nature that humans have to do it so I dunno why you keep mentioning that.

If something exists in nature it makes it natural, it's in the very meaning of the word. Even if you call it an aberration it is still natural. Fortunately, it doesn't matter what you call it, society is waking up to the fact that being is not tied to ancient fables.